![Transcription Center logo](/themes/custom/tc_theme/assets/image/logo.png)
This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.
2 continued from last page (1) RK: and I want to question it. Maybe it is a way of life [[strikethrough]] [[/strikethrough]]. RS: There seem [[strikethrough]] s [[/strikethrough]] to be two separate tendencies, one towards art and one towards life. Dominant tendencies seem to be toward life. In other words the art today is always referring back to some [[strikethrough]] hing [[/strikethrough]] thing in the world, I would say. This has more to do with feelings (life) and little to do with aesthetics (art). AK: In other words it is [[strikethrough]] always referring [[/strikethrough]] mimetic. From about 1780 [[strikethrough]] [[or so?]] [[/strikethrough]] up until [[strikethrough]] the second [[/strikethrough]] World War II, the dominant aesthetics were half understood by artists and architects who would create also anti-life. Another way to define it was to isolate the work. [[strikethrough]] The artist who somehow touched on that it was to isolate the work. [[/strikethrough]] The artist who somehow touched on that Expressionistic way, or whatever he called it, was freeing life, and he was championed by those who recognized it. Since [[strikethrough]] the second [[/strikethrough]] World War II there is a considerable reference to the real world. When anyone speaks about this or that art it is real gusty. Like the gut-sculpture stores, or the clean life format in Nedicks. The important Impressionists are persuing styles personifying themselves as being like life. RS: All of this reliance on life tends to mitigate any tendency towards Abstraction. [[strikethrough] 1sm [[/strikethrough]]. It seems there is an aesthetic problem here that is